By uncharitable I have to go with the dictionary meaning
The quality of ‘Charity’ has a particular Christian connotation, as does it’s negative. The former is a general expectation here at CAF. That is what I meant.
that you feel perhaps I was intolerant, ungracious and unkind. I am not entirely sure how I fit any of these categories.
Well:
Today they are very in your face, and wordly in my opinon. They feed on controversy, are materialistic, they live in what appears to be a palace, and I see them as very self-serving versus God serving.
and:
I see no degree of humility at all, just a lot of superior attitudes, being outragous for the sake of being outragous
These remarks are, to my mind, uncharitable. I think it would be possible to express reservations with more measured language, as I’ve already said.
You begin by describing the sisters’ actions, which is innocuous enough; but then you move on to their motivations, your sense of their disobedience, and an analysis for which you would require the ability to read souls before you could express an opinion with any certainty. That’s what I mean by being uncharitable; you go too far, in my opinion.
Note, by the way, that I am saying your words are uncharitable - you I don’t know well enough to say that you are yourself uncharitable. There’s a qualitative difference, and it’s that difference - when making a critique of something - to which I’m drawing your attention.
you may feel I should be more tolerant of religious communities embracing these
No, I feel you could be more measured in expressing critical opinions.
I simply do not agree. If I have to agree, then I don’t belong in this forum.
And again, the issue is how you expressed yourself, not that you didn’t offer unqualified approval.
Signifcantly, religous communities that are attracting new postulants are those that are more traditional
More postulants, yes. More people that make it to solemn vows? Not really. With one or two exceptions - and the best of luck to them, because they’re thriving - there are no significant differences between the number of people completing formation in the institutes that you’re referring to and the vast majority of other religious institutes. Look at the CARA data, as well as information about professions often posted here in the forums.
In case you’re wondering (you’re probably not, but hey) I belong to one of the ancient orders, and we wear a habit and do the same work we’ve done for centuries. I don’t believe that ours is the only way to live religious life, however; other institutes don’t have to live as we do, and should instead be following the charisms established by their founders and foundresses, as is mandated by the canonical statements and exhortations from church authority that have been promulgated in the last 50 years. But interpretation of those charisms is a matter for those on the inside, not for people on the outside to dictate. And if the institutes get it wrong, they get it wrong; they’ll have to work to change things if they do.
those things that have atypically over the centuries attracted people to monastic life,
Not all religious institutes are monastic; and the Adrian Dominicans, with whom I’m not familiar, seem to be an active community, but perhaps I’m wrong. Consciously or not, however, I think you’ve identified part of the problem here: sometimes people expect all religious to be monastic in outlook and behaviour, but the majority of institutes were not created to be monastic and so live a very different kind of religious life. It helps to remember that there isn’t only one standard by which to judge religious, as was stated earlier in this thread.
I don’t think this is a productive dialogue, so I’ll try and withdraw there. Best wishes to you again.
Needless to say, after about 30 minutes of the nonsense my friends left.
)